CB CONTRACTORS LLC et al v. FLOOR CRETE ENTERPRISES INC et al

Filing 61

ORDER denying 20 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, rejecting 21 Second Amended Complaint, and denying as moot, without prejudice, 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM to First Amended Complaint - Second Amended Complaint due by 8/12/2013 and the Clerk is directed to edit the docket text entry at Doc. 21 to reflect same; signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 7/16/13. (tss)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CB CONTRACTORS LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00138-MP-GRJ

FLOOR CRETE ENTERPRISES, INC.
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter came before the Court for a hearing on July 11, 2013, to clear up various
items of confusion regarding the parties in this case. First, in the Amended Complaint removed
from state court, the plaintiff describes Floor Crete Enterprises, Inc., as a Florida corporation but
agreed in the hearing that it is actually a Texas corporation. Second, plaintiff described CB
Contractors, LLC, as a Florida corporation but admitted in the hearing that it is really a Georgia
limited liability company. Third, the Amended Complaint listed "METLIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT f/k/a THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY" as a
defendant, but the plaintiff later dismissed that entity1 in Doc. 6. and then in Doc. 20 admitted
that the proper insuring entity was "THE TRAVELERS LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY."
Thus, in Doc. 20, the plaintiff filed a motion to file a second amended complaint.
However, the proposed second amended complaint, Doc. 21, would not correct the first two
mistakes listed above. Instead, it merely would add The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company as

Because Metlife was dismissed and the Second Amended Complaint has not been
accepted by the Court, Floor Crete is properly the only defendant at this time.
1

Page 2 of 2

a defendant. Thus, the proposed Second Amended Complaint is ineffective to dispel the
confusion in this case. Because of this, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The motion to amend found at Doc. 20 is denied and the proposed Second
Amended Complaint at Doc. 21 is rejected, without prejudice to the plaintiff
filing a Second2 Amended Complaint that corrects all three mistakes listed above.
The Clerk is directed to edit the docket text entry at Doc. 21 so that it begins with
the words "(This proposed second amended complaint was not accepted by the
court)."

2.

The plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint which corrects all three
mistakes listed above by Monday, August 12, 2013, and shall effect service upon
The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company as soon as practicable thereafter.

3.

After Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company is served, the parties shall confer to
create a and file a revised Joint Report under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and revised
proposed schedule similar to that at Doc. 22 within 21 days of said service.

4.

The motion to dismiss at Doc. 7 is denied as moot, without prejudice to
defendant filing a renewed motion to dismiss which pertains to the soon-to-befiled Second Amended Complaint.

5.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3), the Court orders that Defendant Floor Crete
shall have 21 days after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint to file a
response thereto.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2013

s/Maurice M. Paul

Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

The amended complaint that plaintiff must file will still be called the Second Amended
Complaint, rather than the Third, since the Court is rejecting the proposed Second Amended
Complaint at Doc. 21.
2

Case No: 1:12-cv-00138-MP-GRJ